Escorts Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, Escorts Kubota Limited, filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The respondents were the Union of India and others. The specific tax period and the order or action under challenge, as well as the authority that passed it, are not recorded in the judgment. The amount in dispute is also not stated. The procedural history relevant to the High Court's decision is that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy available but had not availed it.

Held

The Court held that it was not inclined to entertain the present writ petition because the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which had admittedly not been availed. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that they intended to avail this statutory remedy. Accordingly, the Court directed that if the petitioner files the appeal within four weeks from the date of the order, it shall be entertained without any objection being raised on the ground of limitation. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of this direction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is available to the petitioner and has not been availed. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner, through its counsel, indicated an intention to avail the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the Act of 2017. Revenue's contention: The Revenue, represented by learned Senior Standing Counsel, did not explicitly argue against entertaining the writ petition on merits. However, the Court's decision implicitly acknowledges the existence and preference for the statutory remedy.